not to mention the gun in the trunk was not even an ar15...the way they were cycling the action showed it was a shotgun...im thinking the shotgun shell that came out when it was cycled also states it was a shotgun lol.

Yeah, post 100 on page 5, I put up a picture of the Saiga and the video of them taking it out of the trunk. I could swear there was another video that was during the day that folks were talking about, but I guess the car sat there all day before being processed.

So it does make you wonder how they said at one point that the Bushmaster Non-Assault Weapon Rifle was in the car, but who knows. Still not clear on how he got in (if he just walked in or forced his way in or what) with a rifle.

Yeah, post 100 on page 5, I put up a picture of the Saiga and the video of them taking it out of the trunk. I could swear there was another video that was during the day that folks were talking about, but I guess the car sat there all day before being processed.

So it does make you wonder how they said at one point that the Bushmaster Non-Assault Weapon Rifle was in the car, but who knows. Still not clear on how he got in (if he just walked in or forced his way in or what) with a rifle.

well there was the whole thing with the vehicle being shown in two different locations.

I think others have probably mentioned it already, but there's a simple reason why semi-auto assault rifles are being looked at and not hand guns. Hand guns kill more people I think and are probably more common. However, hand guns have legitimate use as a defense weapon because they are easy to carry around and you can get 6 shots off or so fairly quickly meaning that unless a large mob decides to attack you at once you should be able to fend off attackers.

Semi-auto assault rifles aren't needed for hunting. Using them for self defense is unnecessary because you don't need to shoot a clip of 30 bullets in a few seconds to defend yourself. So the reason you are seeing this discrepancy is that gun advocates will say there is much potential harm in a hand gun ban. It is difficult for gun advocates to say that there is much potential harm in a semi auto assault rifle ban.

I think others have probably mentioned it already, but there's a simple reason why semi-auto assault rifles are being looked at and not hand guns. Hand guns kill more people I think and are probably more common. However, hand guns have legitimate use as a defense weapon because they are easy to carry around and you can get 6 shots off or so fairly quickly meaning that unless a large mob decides to attack you at once you should be able to fend off attackers.

Semi-auto assault rifles aren't needed for hunting. Using them for self defense is unnecessary because you don't need to shoot a clip of 30 bullets in a few seconds to defend yourself. So the reason you are seeing this discrepancy is that gun advocates will say there is much potential harm in a hand gun ban. It is difficult for gun advocates to say that there is much potential harm in a semi auto assault rifle ban.

This pretty much deconstructs that pro-gun guy's argument.

Also I'll just add that under the Nazi party, gun laws became more relaxed. So his final statement about his great-whatevers being ashes because of gun bans is a falsehood.

Semi-auto assault rifles aren't needed for hunting. Using them for self defense is unnecessary because you don't need to shoot a clip of 30 bullets in a few seconds to defend yourself. So the reason you are seeing this discrepancy is that gun advocates will say there is much potential harm in a hand gun ban. It is difficult for gun advocates to say that there is much potential harm in a semi auto assault rifle ban.

I thought about defending this yet again...but im tired of. It is something neither side will ever see eye to eye on so just agree to disagree. The pro gun side sees extended magazines as useful in varmint hunting and fending off a large mob much like Korean shop owners did during the LA riots, and the anti gun side just sees them as an implement of death.

The whole point of the 2nd amendment isn't for hunting, it's a safeguard against tyranny.

Not against tyranny necessarily, but more to assert the power of the states if there were to be a dispute between the states and the federal government. Saying that it is against tyranny isn't looking at the whole picture.

“A fool is not a person who does not know something. Rather, a fool is a person who is given information but who chooses to ignore what he is given based on how he wants things to be, rather than how things are."

The whole point of the 2nd amendment isn't for hunting, it's a safeguard against tyranny.

I agree but if that were entirely true then why are live tanks illegal and surface to air missiles illegal for private purchase? If the concern was really that semi-auto assault rifles will enable the common person to defend themselves against the government then I don't know how they'd be shooting the drones out of the sky with an AK-47.

I agree but if that were entirely true then why are live tanks illegal and surface to air missiles illegal for private purchase? If the concern was really that semi-auto assault rifles will enable the common person to defend themselves against the government then I don't know how they'd be shooting the drones out of the sky with an AK-47.

Wow, maybe we need tanks and jets too then.

Is the Federal government coming after us?

I'm sure the military isn't the Borg and won't all automatically side with a tyrannical government.

I'm waiting to see how the media will spin Obama dissolving the senate and declaring martial law. He needs to do it to save the world or something right?

I think others have probably mentioned it already, but there's a simple reason why semi-auto assault rifles are being looked at and not hand guns. Hand guns kill more people I think and are probably more common. However, hand guns have legitimate use as a defense weapon because they are easy to carry around and you can get 6 shots off or so fairly quickly meaning that unless a large mob decides to attack you at once you should be able to fend off attackers.

Semi-auto assault rifles aren't needed for hunting. Using them for self defense is unnecessary because you don't need to shoot a clip of 30 bullets in a few seconds to defend yourself. So the reason you are seeing this discrepancy is that gun advocates will say there is much potential harm in a hand gun ban. It is difficult for gun advocates to say that there is much potential harm in a semi auto assault rifle ban.

"Assault weapons" are being targeted because the politicians can convince folks that know nothing about guns that they somehow do something more than other guns.

There are pistols in the assault weapons ban too, you know, as well as shotguns.

They are using the event to misrepresent a class of firearms to get their goal of a ban going, otherwise they'd be pointing out that CONNECTICUT HAS A BAN.

Once that is established and does nothing, they'll go after more most likely. During the first AWB they next decided that "sniper rifles" (bolt action rifles that are "too accurate" for hunting) and 50 calibers were evil. Some will admit they're trying to ban everything, others believe that the Assault Weapons Ban is just about "assault weapons".

I agree but if that were entirely true then why are live tanks illegal and surface to air missiles illegal for private purchase? If the concern was really that semi-auto assault rifles will enable the common person to defend themselves against the government then I don't know how they'd be shooting the drones out of the sky with an AK-47.

They may not be able to shoot a drone out of the sky with their AR-15 (AK-47's are currently illegal), but they have a much better chance of doing it with their semi-auto assault rifle than they do with a handgun.

Syrian rebels don't have tanks or drones. It doesn't stop them from fighting back.
Afghans don't have planes, tanks or drones, and yet a coalition of the worlds biggest, most technologically advanced armies is nowhere near close to beating them 11+ years into the war...

I just love how the weapons are the Big Bads, and yet everyone conveniently forgets psychotropic drugs with documented side effects of suicide . Perhaps, it's not the weapons making people go on murder rampages? Perhaps if the news stopped giving massive publicity to these mass murderers they'd just go and off themselves quietly. Or better yet, perhaps if we stopped giving our kids these drugs for any and all reasons they wouldn't get to the point they'd want to kill themselves in the first place...

The whole point of the 2nd amendment isn't for hunting, it's a safeguard against tyranny.

If your view of tyranny is the british empire in the XVIII century trying to get hold of the american lands, yeah, that's probably the point of that amendment. But no, you probably one of those people who just don't like the federal government and think each tax increase they do means they are turning into a communist dictatorship

There is more I could say, but really, the whole "the 2nd amendment is to protect us against tyrants" argument is laughable, a far-fetched thing to say to defend your "right" to use guns at worse, a public display of naiveté at best.

If your view of tyranny is the british empire in the XVIII century trying to get hold of the american lands, yeah, that's probably the point of that amendment. But no, you probably one of those people who just don't like the federal government and think each tax increase they do means they are turning into a communist dictatorship

There is more I could say, but really, the whole "the 2nd amendment is to protect us against tyrants" argument is laughable, a far-fetched thing to say to defend your "right" to use guns at worse, a public display of naiveté at best.

It's completely possible that the intention of the 2nd amendment was to insist that citizens of the US are responsible for protecting their country and banning firearms would inhibit that responsibility.

If your view of tyranny is the british empire in the XVIII century trying to get hold of the american lands, yeah, that's probably the point of that amendment. But no, you probably one of those people who just don't like the federal government and think each tax increase they do means they are turning into a communist dictatorship

There is more I could say, but really, the whole "the 2nd amendment is to protect us against tyrants" argument is laughable, a far-fetched thing to say to defend your "right" to use guns at worse, a public display of naiveté at best.